On Tue, 25 May 2004 20:57:07 GMT, Robey Price
wrote:

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
confessed the following:

Did we notice that the Berg beheading in Iraq was conducted by
Al-Zawhari, an Al-Qeada leader? No link to AQ and Iraq???

Uhhh, Ed there are reports that the presence of AQ is
post-invasion/occupation. That's if you believe folks like Karen
Kwiatkowski LtCol USAF (Ret). Nobody disputes AQ is now in Iraq, but
there is a wide credibility gap connecting AQ and Iraq pre-invasion.

That doesn't stand the "common sense" test. If there were no linkages
and AQ was not welcome in Saddam's Iraq, why would it be attractive to
come rushing into the potentially hazardous environment post conflict?
"Oh boy, the friendly regime is gone, I'd better buy a ticket to go
there and get my ass kicked...."?


Or, the discovery last week of a 155mm shell with 3 LITERS of Sarin?
How much WMD does it take to make WMD? Got any estimate of what 3
liters of Sarin would do in downtown Manhattan? Or, how big that is?
How many needles can you hide in a haystack the size of California. We
found one so far.

Fair enough, do we invade Iran and Syria next, then North Korea? I ask
that partially as a rhetorical question because I have cohorts that
honestly think Iran and Syria ARE next on the list...and these guys
believe everything GWB (Rove)/Cheney/Rumsfeld say, and yet they think
Colin Powell is something of a pussy. WTFO? Blind obedience is scary.
Neocon arrogance is dangerous.

I love the argument techniques of the dedicated liberal. The
implication of some sort of puppet-mastery, the labeling of the
administration with the "pejorative du jour"--neo-con, the attribution
of "arrogance" and the insertion of a clutch of red herrings like
Iran, Syria and NK.

Why do your cohorts "honestly think" (I question the verb and would
substitute "believe" rather than "think",) that Iran and Syria are
next? Most observers see a solid shift in Iran away from theocracy and
a desire by the population at large to return to a moderately pro-West
secularism. Good progress. Syria is still hostile but not as hostile
as they were during Dad's regime. They know what they can and cannot
get away with. Their concern is much more with Lebanon and Israel.
And, NK is seeking "face" but also discussing rapprochement with the
South.

One sarin round after 12 months, that's hardly impressive Ed. I don't
dispute that SH used WMD against Iranians and Kurds over a decade ago.
I am curious why he didn't use them last year when we invaded, that
seems illogical NOT to use them in your last stand to keep control of
your country. Again you'll be hard pressed to present evidence that SH
was about to turn his WMD vast stockpiles (that even Clinton's folks
thought he had) or those remnants over to AQ.

"Vast stockpiles" of WMD don't require lots of space. As noted, 3
liters of Sarin in a package the size of a half-gallon of milk and a
loaf of bread. How far can you disperse 200 such packages in a country
the size of Iraq. Why didn't Saddam use them? Maybe he felt it wasn't
worth it? Maybe he didn't get the chance? Maybe he had a CCC/I
breakdown and subordinates refused? Who knows.

The point of the discussion is that with the introduction of chemical,
biological and nuclear weapons in small packages into the hands of
non-national, and arguably irrational actors, the paradigm of war has
changed. We can't continue to subsribe to the 18th century
international law concept of justification for war being an invasion
or violent attack. We can't pre-empt, willy-nilly around the world,
but the complexities and interdependence of 21st century international
relations effectively constrain any superpowers actions.

I don't dispute that SH was a ruthless MF; I don't dispute Iraq will
eventually be better off with SH gone. I simply dispute the arguments
GWB chose to rationalize our invasion...I'm not alone. Are we going to
occupy all nations that are potential threats?

We haven't been known through out the last century for maintaining
occupation of any nations beyond the need to stablilize the situation.

And just for the record, I voted against GWB in 2000 because he lacks
the gravitas IMO and the guy I wanted in the Oval Office, John McCain
wasn't in the running (Rove can take credit for the SC "push
polling.")...but I digress.

I confess to supporting McCain as well, although once he lost the
nomination I had no difficulty with supporting GWB as the alternative
was much too frightening to contemplate.

(Just as an aside, how many times have you heard the word "gravitas"
used in any context before the summer of 2000? Can you say "talking
points" and "sound bite"? I knew that you could.)

As for gravitas, can we look at the administration of GWB and that of
his predecessor? Albright vs Powell? Cohen vs Rumsfeld? Carville and
26-year old "senior advisor" Stephanopolous? Gravitas in the closet of
the Oval Office with an intern? Reich? Elder? and lets not forget Ron
Brown.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8